While reflecting on recent episodes of police misconduct in my community and beyond, I began to think about how much law enforcement agencies resemble the Catholic Church. And no, this is not a pre-St. Patrick’s day Irish joke. Consider the following: The Church and police departments have both become safe havens for criminal abusers of authority. Both are allergic to accountability. Both are hierarchical institutions that value blind obedience and discourage internal dissent. Both focus more on covering their posteriors than they do on removing criminals from their ranks. Finally, neither of these entities truly value input from their respective communities.

I do not mean to single out the Catholic Church here. I also could have compared police agencies to Goldman Sachs, Penn State or the White House, I suppose. The root cause of the problems in these entities is not “a few bad apples,” it is structural. The consistent failures of these bureaucracies is intimately linked to the culture of authoritarianism, yes men, corruption and cover-ups created by pyramid shaped organizations all over the world.

But it is particularly dangerous and disturbing when our increasingly militarized police show themselves to be lawless. Criminal cops are more of a threat to us than the average street criminal because they have advantages that common thugs generally lack: Power, influence and, in many cases, qualified immunity on the job. We are, it seems, at their mercy.

This is why it is important that people stop making excuses for “cops gone wild.” The police claim they are here to serve and protect us. They claim that they wish to work in partnership with the community. So let us hold them to these claims, in spite of our skepticism. Let us pull no punches when a member of the “brotherhood” abuses the public trust. They are not simply wayward cops that succumbed to the pressures of the job. They are traitors and enemies of the people. And until decent police officers stand up to these enemies of the people in greater numbers, they too should be considered suspect. Let’s stop falling for the pernicious lie that a person is a hero just because they wear a uniform and a badge. Indeed, moral cowardice is rampant in policing.

People should also understand that modern police, going back to Robert Peel’s “Bobbies,” have served largely as an instrument of class control and rebellion suppression. I know that many individual officers don’t see their jobs that way, but again, the problem is not individual officers per se. Consider the historical evidence. Examine current police priorities. Observe how agencies operate in the ghettos. Look at who fills our prisons. Watch how local police and federal agencies overreact to the “subversives” who dare question the official narratives of American state capitalism. Reforming the police after the 1960s and moving to a “community policing” model has not dramatically curtailed police abuse. In fact, it simply allowed agencies to don a temporary mask of benevolence as they continued doing the same things they have always done. Real peace-keeping in our communities will require nothing short of a revolution.

For now, we need to remind police officers whom they work for. To make departments more accountable, citizens should demand that independent police review boards be set up. Boards should be composed of elected trustees. In keeping with Left-libertarian philosophy, those elected should be easily re-callable, investigated thoroughly for potential conflicts of interest and should serve brief terms. Review boards should oversee hiring, documentation of complaints, investigation, discipline, terminations and policy review. These committees must also have subpoena power to be effective. This change is necessary because the police are demonstrably incapable of policing themselves. Furthermore, since we finance these departments, it is only fair that they should open their doors to us and allow us to have a say in all aspects of their operations.

Movements advocating independent review boards will face intense resistance from police unions. So campaigns to set up official mechanisms of community control should be coupled with citizen-initiated attempts to monitor police. Cop watch programs are becoming quite common and are making more citizens than ever aware of how the police consistently fail to live up to their lofty mission statements. And due to widespread availability of cell phone cameras, one need not belong to any organization to record police activities. Often, cop watchers make their presence know to police while they are filming and this approach certainly has merit. But I would argue that inconspicuous recording–as in the Rodney King case–may be a smarter and safer tactic at times. Teams of monitors may consider sending overt cop watchers to scenes as “decoys,” while covert operatives film from a position of concealment. This can ensure that someone will get away with solid footage even if officers resort to intimidation or confiscation of equipment.

Another way to exert control over the police is to encourage community discussions about the activities they are involved in. What police actions are inherently illegitimate? This is where the fight to end the “drug war” (and other “wars” on consensual acts) comes into play. Conversely, what police activities are truly related to public safety? Well, obviously society must respond in some way to murder, robbery, battery, assault, burglary, larceny and other common law crimes. We also might add reckless driving (not merely speeding or equipment violations) to this list. In order to undermine the state’s tendency to criminalize victimless crimes, we can simply demand that police focus on crimes with victims and behavior that is truly dangerous. Also, one doesn’t need to treat the constitution as some kind of holy relic–the government certainly doesn’t–to insist that the police respect their constitutional limitations. For example, we can urge our local police agencies to put a halt to “consent searches” during traffic stops and “no knock” entries during raids.

Building on this, libertarian-minded people can begin to talk about valid and invalid reasons for contacting the police? Generally speaking, private citizens are rarely required to contact law enforcement. This should be thought of as a way to weaken the state’s monopoly on force. Of course, it will be difficult to overcome the “I’m calling the cops” culture we live in. But we can start by emphasizing that once we call the police, the state takes over. Criminal defense attorney Michael Cicchini explains this in his informative book But They Didn’t Read Me My Rights: Myths, Oddities And Lies About Our Legal System (2010). According to Cicchini, “when wrongdoing is reported to the police, the police refer the matter to the prosecutor’s or district attorney’s office, which represents the state. In that case, control of the case lies solely with the state, which will often press forward with criminal litigation regardless of the wishes or desires of the complaining witness” (p.94). So people need to use good judgement before they decide to call the cops on their loved ones. They should also show some neighborly courtesy and stop complaining to the police about the guy with the loud music upstairs or the pot smokers next door.

My overall point here is that citizens need to learn to own the police departments that they are currently paying for. That’s not so radical, is it? This should not be an anti-police movement, it should be a pro-democracy movement. But the kind of democracy we should be shooting for is a more robust, participatory democracy than we currently have. As progress is made, we can start to ask deeper questions. Should citizen responsibility for community security be encouraged and legally enhanced? Isn’t it possible that a society’s approach to law enforcement can evolve beyond police? Since professional police forces are not the historical norm, what are viable alternatives to today’s police? And how do we ensure that these alternatives would be a step forward rather than a giant leap backward? I hope to address these and other questions in a future article.

Out of curiosity, what do you suggest people do about loud music or smoking by their neighbors (some have allergic reactions to smoke) when they refuse to stop? Neighborly courtesy cuts both ways, I'd think. I'm not advocating calling the cops-what's the better way when asking nicely fails?

mcc1789:
That is a very good question and one we need to anticipate when we discuss these issues with the general public.

In your scenario, "asking nicely" has already failed, so you at least made an effort to handle the problem neighbor to neighbor. That's important and that is what I wish to encourage. My opinion is that after that, you don't have to be so nice.

In the case of loud music, make a recording (camcorder, cell phone, etc) of how it sounds from your residence and maybe outside the neighbor's residence. Document, document, document. You might then present this evidence to your inconsiderate neighbor so they know you are doing this, if you feel safe approaching them again. People often wise up if they know their behavior is being documented.

If you live in a house, you can share your recording with neighbors and ask them if they have similar complaints about the loud neighbor. If so, a group "intervention" may be in order. If you live in an apartment, then their are probably policies about loud music and other disruptive behavior. These days, there may also be policies about smoking (anything) in the apartment building. If your fellow tenant is totally disregarding your concerns, maybe you should take your complaint and your evidence to the management office. Taking it to the landlord would not be my first option as a Left-libertarian, but sometimes you don't have a lot of good options when someone is severely disrupting your life or your family's life. As you said, "neighborly courtesy cuts both ways."

Now maybe the situation is really bad and you and/or the kids can't get to sleep. Maybe the neighbor makes verbal threats when you ask him to be more considerate. In these time sensitive scenarios, maybe you should call the cops. It's up to you. In the case of loud music, your neighbor will likely get a warning or an ordinance ticket. Just remember that he forced the issue.

Society DOES need some organized way to deal with people that infringe on the rights of others. Currently, that job falls to police. But if more people are looking for ways to resolve disputes without the police, then we are making progress. And that is when we can start to discuss alternatives.

I support my personal belief to never ever call the police for anything unless someone is in harms way. Like if the neighbors house is on fire or someone is breaking into their home or car. Disputes between neighbors should be dealt with between the neighbors and leave any and all authorities out of it. Why? Because the only "winner" when involving the authorities is the authorities. Both neighbors will lose, guaranteed. The authorities may fine one neighbor or more likely both. Then either of them will want revenge for ever against the other. Continually being a pest back and forth. Waste of time,money and energy. With again the only "winner" being the authorities or state.

People should also understand that modern police, going back to Robert Peel’s “Bobbies,” have served largely as an instrument of class control and rebellion suppression.

No, not going back that far. In fact, Peel’s police were deliberately not armed precisely so that they couldn’t fill any such paramilitary role. It was nothing to do with protecting the people they dealt with or protecting their civil liberties, but rather so that they couldn’t be used in a way that might upset the constitutional outworkings of the upper and middle class groups represented in Parliament. So, when it came to “class control and rebellion suppression”, that role was deliberately engineered out in case it ever got used against the ruling classes; for that, the troops would have to be used “in support of the civil power” – but the ruling classes officered those. The most the police could be used for was dispersing or containing unarmed groups and mobs; if outright revolution had ever broken out, it would have led to a resort to the troops or to special constables drawn from the upper and middle classes.